What gives Paul the right..

[Elijah John]

Romans 10.9

If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

For debate,

-What gives Paul the right to add conditions for salvation, "namely believing in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead"?

-Where did Jesus himself actually teach this as a condition for salvation?

[Checkpoint]

Yes, but again belief in what exactly? In God? In Jesus? What about Jesus? In his teachings? Or in his resurrection?

Where does Jesus teach the requirement of believing in his eventual resurrection as necessary for salvation?

Please be specific.

Mark 16:14 Later He appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table; and He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen. 15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.


Is this specific enough? Jesus rebuked those who did not believe those who claimed to have seen him after he had risen. So yes, it does look like Jesus condemns those who do not believe in the resurrection.

.
Yup, that is pretty specific. But it a roundabout teaching after the fact. The fact remains that Jesus never taught them beforehand that there salvation was dependent on belief in his impending resurrecton.

I do see that in the context of the passage that this is so. Verse 16 is directly related to verse 14.

But that still seems an unfair requirment for salvation, that yes, Jesus taught after his resurrection, but not during his ministry.

Once again, Paul had an unfair advantage but is not without justification for the "believing-in-your-heart-that-God-raised-him-from-the-dead" requirement. As you have demonstrated, Paul seems to have the Jesus precedent upon which to appeal.

Well done....so much for that angle.

Whew!

At last, you have basically conceded something of substance.

Good for you.

This leads me to ask you some related questions:

Does such believing mean we accept that Jesus did indeed literally come back to life in an immortal body?

Or what?

Are believers destined to experience a similar resurrection, and we need to believe that as well??

[Elijah John]

Yes, but again belief in what exactly? In God? In Jesus? What about Jesus? In his teachings? Or in his resurrection?

Where does Jesus teach the requirement of believing in his eventual resurrection as necessary for salvation?

Please be specific.

Mark 16:14 Later He appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table; and He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen. 15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.


Is this specific enough? Jesus rebuked those who did not believe those who claimed to have seen him after he had risen. So yes, it does look like Jesus condemns those who do not believe in the resurrection.

.
Yup, that is pretty specific. But it a roundabout teaching after the fact. The fact remains that Jesus never taught them beforehand that there salvation was dependent on belief in his impending resurrecton.

I do see that in the context of the passage that this is so. Verse 16 is directly related to verse 14.

But that still seems an unfair requirment for salvation, that yes, Jesus taught after his resurrection, but not during his ministry.

Once again, Paul had an unfair advantage but is not without justification for the "believing-in-your-heart-that-God-raised-him-from-the-dead" requirement. As you have demonstrated, Paul seems to have the Jesus precedent upon which to appeal.

Well done....so much for that angle.

Whew!

At last, you have basically conceded something of substance.

Good for you.

This leads me to ask you some related questions:

Does such believing mean we accept that Jesus did indeed literally come back to life in an immortal body?

Or what?

Are believers destined to experience a similar resurrection, and we need to believe that as well??

Not sure you understood my point. I was not questioning the reality of the resurrection, I try to keep an open mind about that. I have no idea whether Christ was raised with a transformed Spiritual body, or if his flesh, blood and bones now reside in Heaven. But I doubt it's the latter.

I was only questioning the necessity of belief in that resurrection for salvation.

All this begs another question. If belief "in one's heart" is required for salvation, if one even has small lingering doubts, does that mean that one is not saved?

If so, doesn't that compel a degree of pretense? Would any Christian be willing to admit they doubt the resurrection even for a moment, for fear of being accused by their fellow Christians of "not being saved"?

And with so much at stake, wouldn't such a doctrine compel pre-emptive denial to any contrary evidence for the resurrection?

And the fact remains that it has not been demonstrated by Jesus during his pre-Easter ministry that belief in his resurrection was a requirement for salvation.

In fact, despite the verse cited, I doubt the historical (read real) Jesus ever taught this.

In Judaism, belief in "miracles" is not required for salvation. Only devotion to God and His ways.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 22 by Elijah John]

All this begs another question. If belief "in one's heart" is required for salvation, if one even has small lingering doubts, does that mean that one is not saved?

If so, doesn't that compel a degree of pretense? Would any Christian be willing to admit they doubt the resurrection even for a moment, for fear of being accused by their fellow Christians of "not being saved"?

And with so much at stake, wouldn't such a doctrine compel pre-emptive denial to any contrary evidence for the resurrection?

Occasional doubts are a part and parcel of our walk by faith rather than by sight.

They do not affect our salvation any more than our sins do, which will continue as long as we live this life.

And the fact remains that it has not been demonstrated by Jesus during his pre-Easter ministry that belief in his resurrection was a requirement for salvation.

So?

That is because he was yet to die and rise again, and thus usher in the New Covenant.

In fact, despite the verse cited, I doubt the historical (read real) Jesus ever taught this.

The real historical Jesus is the one found in all four Gospels.

We do not need "another Jesus".

Including your version, which is just that, your version.

In Judaism, belief in "miracles" is not required for salvation. Only devotion to God and His ways.

This is not about Judaism but about Christ and Christianity.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 23 by Checkpoint]

The real Jesus, the historical Jesus was a Jew. And that is not just my "version". John and Paul started the ball rolling in the process of myth-making and Divinization of Jesus. The Church Fathers finished it.

Jews may or may not have performed miracles by God's grace, but they did not teach the necessity of believing in miracles in order to obtain salvation. Only devotion to God and His ways.

It is very likely that Jesus did not differ from his Jewish bretheren in this regard.

Yes, I am skeptical of everything that was put on the lips of the "post-Easter" Jesus.

But that skepticism is not without justification. It is mainline thinking in the "historical Jesus" movement. Certainly not mine alone.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 23 by Checkpoint]

The real Jesus, the historical Jesus was a Jew. And that is not jst my "version".u

Of course he was a Jew. One like no other.

A Jew with a special mission that many other Jews would not accept or appreciate.

Luke 2:

25 Now there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon, and this man was righteous and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him.
26 And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.
27 And he came in the Spirit into the temple, and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him according to the custom of the Law,
28 he took him up in his arms and blessed God and said,

29 “Lord, now you are letting your servant depart in peace,
according to your word;
30 for my eyes have seen your salvation
31 that you have prepared in the presence of all peoples,
32 a light for revelation to the Gentiles,
and for glory to your people Israel.�

33 And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him.
34 And Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, “Behold, this child is appointed for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is opposed
35 (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also), so that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed.�

John and Paul started the ball rolling in the process of myth-making and Divinization of Jesus. The Church Fathers finished it.

That is your view. I think what you say about John and Paul is much over-stated.

Jews may or may not have performed miracles by God's grace, but they did not teach the necessity of believing in miracles in order to obtain salvation. Only devotion to God and His ways.

It is very likely that Jesus did not differ from his Jewish bretheren in this regard.

The Jews were sign-seekers, one of many things that Jesus put in its place.

Matthew 12:

38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.�
39 But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
40 For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth".

Yes, I am skeptical of everything that was put on the lips of the "post-Easter" Jesus.

But that skepticism is not without justification. It is mainline thinking in the "historical Jesus" movement. Certainly not mine alone.

I am skeptical of that skepticism, as are many Christians.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 25 by Checkpoint]

Would you fix your quote formatting in post 25 please, the way you have it makes it look like I said what you said.

Thanks.

Or if you'd rather just isolate your response without quoting our accumulated exchange, in order to clarify and simplify who said what.

[Checkpoint]

[This post is an attempt to clarify my post #25]

Thank you.

[Elijah John]

[This post is an attempt to clarify my post #25]

Thank you.

Thanks.

[2ndpillar]

[Replying to post 2 by dio9]

Dear 9,
Peter, Paul and Judas, were simply fulfilling the prophecy of Zechariah 11. They were the 3 shepherds who were to all die in the same generation/month (Zech 11;8). Two of the three, were described as "staffs", and were to be used to "pasture the flock doomed to slaughter" (Zech 11:7). Those would be the "staff" called "Favor" (Zech 11:10), which was Paul, and the "staff" called "Cords", who was Peter, and who was described as one who "leaves the flock", such as the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Mt 10:6).

[onewithhim]

If we were to REJECT that fact, would we not be rejecting what Jesus said about it and even rejecting that he did rise again, and therefore the whole message of Christianity would be null and void to us?

"From that time forward Jesus Christ commenced showing his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the older men and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised up." (Matthew 16:21)

How can we separate our belief in his resurrection and our ultimate salvation, according to what he himself taught?

Because Jesus didn't teach that, Paul did. That's part of my point, the resurrection is not the "whole message of Christianity".

Where, for instance, does Jesus ever teach this in the Sermon on the Mount? That is, where did he teach the importance of his impending crucifixion and resurrection as it pertains to salvation?

The "whole message of Christianity" that Jesus taught was the love of God and neighbor, which he called the "Law and the Prophets"

That is if we want to reduce things to their essence.

Paul's essence of Christianity is different, with Paul, it seems to be all about the crucifixion and the resurrection.

Jesus did teach that his death and resurrection were necessary components in the plan of salvation, though not necessarily in the Sermon on the Mount. I agree that it is the most important thing---or, the bottom line---in what Jesus taught, that we must love Jehovah and other humans to be acceptable to God. That is what life is all about.

His death and resurrection were the way to get us out of bondage to sin and death. To be able to go on loving Jehovah and other people we would have to be able to continue to be alive. So that is where the ransom comes in.

Paul seems to be all about the crucifixion and resurrection because it was his assignment from Jesus to make clear to the Jews and the nations that he, Jesus, was sent by God to get rid of the barrier that existed between them and God. (See Acts 9:6,15.) It was vitally important that everyone understand this. He, Jesus, was God's means of ultimately bringing life and peace to the world.

Jesus said to his disciples: "You will receive power when the holy spirit arrives upon you, and you will be witnesses of me both in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the most distant part of the earth." (Acts 1:8)

Paul had to do that.

.